2019 Statistics PhD Profile

[parukia911]

Hi guys, was planning on applying for a Stats PhD this coming fall, but am a little worried because I am a little short on the research experience/personal projects part. I was had a very quantitatively focused undergraduate course load, and math is probably one of my fortes. Ideally I want to stay in the SF/bay area. What do you think I should do to increase my chances?

 

Undergrad Institution: Top 10 US
Majors: Mathematics, Economics
Concentrations: Statistics, Finance
GPA: 3.88/4.00

Type of Student: Domestic Male

GRE General Test:
Q: 170 
V: 168
W: 4.5
GRE Subject Test in Mathematics:
M: taking in October, but expect 85-95% range
 

Programs Applying: Statistics

 

Research Experience: None
Awards/Honors/Recognitions: Putnam Competition school winner - top 200 nationally, graduated summa cum laude
Pertinent Activities or Jobs: TAed for 5 different courses (1 compsci, 1 statistics, 3 finance), all quantitative. Worked at a quantitative trading firm with work on quant research macro projects. Interned as a data scientist at a few marketing research firms, applying models to transaction data.

Letters of Recommendation: 1 stat/marketing professor who is very prominent in his field (helped me get my data science internships), 1 finance professor (quantitative finance focus, took 2 of his classes inc financial engineering and TAed 2 of his classes), 1 stat professor (senior stat professor, ex dean of admissions for the school, teaches 1st year PhD stat class which I took as a sophomore)

Math/Statistics Grades:  Calc IV (A+), Real Analysis 1/2 (A, A), Algebra (A+, A+), Complex Analysis (A+), Statistical Methodology (A+), Bayesian Statistics (A), Modern Regression (B+), Financial Derivatives (A), Financial Engineering (A-)

Coding Skills: Python, SQL - mostly self taught/learned on the job, but I have done a lot of self studying on algorithms and have a few small software projects/coding competition awards

Applying to Where: Stanford, Berk, UC Davis

 

Concerned primarily about my lack of research experience and long term critical thinking projects. I really want to emphasize my math skills, and I think I'll get pretty solid recommendations from pretty senior professors. Is there anything I can do in the next few months to increase my chances?

[bayessays]

You have an almost perfect GPA from Stanford, strong math background, perfect test scores, were a top Putnam performer, and have recommendations from well-known professors. You say that you don't have research experience, but your internships count and are just as legitimate as almost any undergrad stats research. I'd be shocked if you didn't get into Davis, incredibly surprised if you didn't get into Berkeley, and think you should ask your profs about getting into their department (but I think you have a very good shot there).  If you have any flexibility on location, you will have one of the best profiles of any applicant this year and should apply to more top schools.  I would never usually say this because Davis has a good program, but I think you're too good to go there. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by bayessays

[parukia911]

Sorry, I actually did not go to Stanford, didn't mean to imply that I did. Went to another top 10 US university (not in the bay area) but would like to be in the bay area.

[bayessays]

Sorry, I saw the word "stay" and made that assumption. Anyways, with the school that you actually go to, the same applies. You have as good of a shot as pretty much anyone to get into these programs.

[speowi]

While I think your profile is pretty good, two of the three schools on your list are among the best in the country. Unlike bayessays, I would not be surprised at all if you didn't get into Stanford or Berkeley given how competitive their applicant pools are, but I do think you have a chance.

I think you're more or less correct about the weaknesses in your application. Unfortunately, the very nature of long-term research projects is that they aren't something you can do between now and when you apply, so there's not much you can do about that. How set are you on being in the Bay Area for your Ph.D.? If you're flexible on that, I would strongly recommend diversifying your list of schools by adding more programs. Other than that, it seems like the only thing you can do is prepare your application materials well and do well on the subject GRE.

Out of curiosity, was summa cum laude awarded based on your GPA percentile (e.g., top 1%) or based on a hard, fixed GPA cutoff (e.g. 3.85 and above)?

Edited September 21, 2018 by speowi

[StatsG0d]

Yeah, I think you should apply to more schools. Clearly you have a geographical preference, but I don't think it's worth it to not check out more places. You'd fall off a lot going from Stanford / Berkeley to Davis, and there's a lot of great programs in between.

[parukia911]

Summa cum laude was a hard cut off, so I guess it's not as impressive. I'm pretty location bound imo, so if this doesn't work out I might postpone grad school and try to work at a research institute and get more experience in that avenue. We'll see if things change.

[speowi]

1 hour ago, statsapplier said:

Summa cum laude was a hard cut off, so I guess it's not as impressive. I'm pretty location bound imo, so if this doesn't work out I might postpone grad school and try to work at a research institute and get more experience in that avenue. We'll see if things change.

Given your location constraint (which I get--people have different priorities and personal situations), what you said sounds like a good plan.

[Gauss2017]

I would be surprised if you dont get into Davis unless they see you as over qualified and reject you on that basis.  I wouldnt worry about the lack of research experience.  I dont think it will make a difference in your case.  Berkeley and Stanford accept about 20 students out of about 400 to 500 so there is a lot to the holistic admission process.  Each one has about a 50 per cent yield of admitted students. Good luck

[Radon-Nikodym]

3 hours ago, Gauss2017 said:

I would be surprised if you dont get into Davis unless they see you as over qualified and reject you on that basis.  I wouldnt worry about the lack of research experience.  I dont think it will make a difference in your case.  Berkeley and Stanford accept about 20 students out of about 400 to 500 so there is a lot to the holistic admission process.  Each one has about a 50 per cent yield of admitted students. Good luck

Okay, what you said about Stanford just isn’t true. Stanford states on their Statistics PhD Admissions FAQ page (which they update pretty regularly) that “We receive approximately 120 PhD applications each year, and we are able to admit 10-12 new students each year.” They have a smaller applicant pool (much smaller than expected of a program of their caliber) by requiring applicants to take the Math GRE subject test, which a lot of prospective statistics PhD students don’t take (or take and receive a score that makes them feel not up to par to Stanford’s expectations. Their FAQ page states that admitted students have an average percentile of 82nd on the subject test). I’m not sure where you’re getting the numbers from your post.

[Gauss2017]

You are probably correct about Stanford.  Those are numbers I heard for Berkeley and UW.  I assumed as many people would want to go to 

Stanford.  I guess I was wrong.  Lots of people dont see the relevancy of the mathGRE for statistics programs.  That’s why virtually no departments 

require it.

[parukia911]

Update on situation:

Got Math GRE test back, got 85 which was on the low range of what I was expecting 

Updated my list of schools to include UW stats and UCLA. 

Edited November 23, 2018 by statsapplier

[ienisesv]

Pretty sure you're from Penn lol. Stats/marketing professor is Prof. Fader?

[speowi]

1 hour ago, ienisesv said:

Pretty sure you're from Penn lol. Stats/marketing professor is Prof. Fader?

While anonymity obviously isn't guaranteed in this forum (or anywhere on the Internet, really), intentionally/directly trying to out people just for the sake of outing them isn't cool. Is there a reason that you're trying to get OP to explicitly name one of their recommenders?

Edited to add: I used to think Gauss2017 wasn't a troll, but the fact that they upvoted ienisesv's comment without context is making me change my mind lol

Edited December 10, 2018 by speowi

[Gauss2017]

No everybody who presents a contrary opinion to you is not a troll.  Yes i do support the advocacy of the disabled , women in stem and URMs.

ien hasn’t posted a lot and may not know all the rules of etiquette in posting. Rather than criticize them a better approach would have been to politely express your concerns

[speowi]

13 hours ago, Gauss2017 said:

No everybody who presents a contrary opinion to you is not a troll.  Yes i do support the advocacy of the disabled , women in stem and URMs.

ien hasn’t posted a lot and may not know all the rules of etiquette in posting. Rather than criticize them a better approach would have been to politely express your concerns

Interesting. I (a) acknowledged that there is a reason that ienisesv might have thought it was OK to out people in this forum (people aren't guaranteed anonymity on the Internet); (b) explained that, despite this fact, the norm in this forum is that we shouldn't out people just for the sake of outing them; and (c) gave ienisesv the benefit of the doubt by asking if they have a legitimate reason for asking the OP a personal question so that ienisesv could explain further. If this is criticism at all, it's constructive criticism. And I don't see how it's impolite.

I don't want to derail the previous conversation, Gauss, so I'll let you have the last word on this if you want.

[Gauss2017]

Speowi I see you downvoted my post where I suggested that posters should be polite. That says a lot.  It is always better to politely address your concerns.